I'm thinking of exposing the sqlite db, and now possibly this JSON file as well.. I can take both during the build process and throw them up on CF. Great idea, thank you.
> For any nonviolent offenses against the United States which they may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1
2014 through the date of this pardon (JAN 19, 2025).
> Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
Not quite as long, but much more significant. (No violence exception, the criminal was the President, and they were crimes against the entire country, not some random drug/tax charges.)
The real embarrassment is how little effort there's been to limit/reform the pardon system since then.
Pardons have valid uses, but it's wild that a single person can unilaterally pardon donators, family members, former presidents, etc, without needing so much as a simple majority confirmation vote in the House or Senate.
The questionable pardons that we've seen over the last few years (and the Nixon pardon) are just the tip of iceberg in terms of how badly they could be abused.
I'd imagine it won't be long until we see a president issue a preemptive pardon to themself at the end of their term, because there's nothing in the constitution that says they can't.
Isn't that the whole point of all these pardon things? To reduce incentives to usurp power to avoid responsibility by providing less destructive for the political system ways to avoid responsibility.
Or concretely, would the Israeli wars end sooner if Netanyahu was pardoned of all crimes? Would Kim Jong Un consider giving up his position if he could be pardoned, or at least credibly believe that he could live a life in luxurious exile? I don’t know the answer to either of those questions, but I do think letting some people get away with crimes with witness immunity can make it much more difficult for criminals to organize as the optimum move is to defect before anyone else does. Which is why I think elite blackmail focuses on unforgivable deeds.
> Would Kim Jong Un consider giving up his position if he could be pardoned, or at least credibly believe that he could live a life in luxurious exile?
The kind of despot that sends assassins against people in exile is unlikely to choose it themselves.
Hmm. I feel like it isn’t over the history of the US and there was a period where US governance tended toward an ideal but the last 50 years have reverted to the norm. E.g Oliver North
So exactly when was that? Before 50 years ago, “Separate but Equal” was the law of the land as decided by the Supreme Court, laws against interracial marriage and laws against “sodomy” (homosexuality) were also upheld by the Supreme Court.
There is absolutely no point in US history that the US was “ideal”.
My still living parents grew up in the segregated south.
> It’s in the Constitution. There isn’t that much anyone can do.
We have modified the constitution before. It is not easy, sure. But, presidential pardons are being abused so thoroughly that it does warrant people making the effort to change things.
If we put 3x caught pot dealers in for life, a corrupt President can certainly rot alongside them.
The more powerful you are, the more significant the penalties for abuse of that power should be, because the damage you can do is correspondingly large.
Don’t think the three strikes law you are referring to (3x nonviolent = life in prison) exists anymore. As it was generally regarded as a cruel mistake. Likewise with hanging politicians for lying…
"Time to move on" is used only when someone in power is guilty. Happened with Nixon. Mitch McConnell basically said the same thing about Trump after J6 insurrection. And I think Garland believed the same thing when he did not move fast enough to investigate Trump. People believe in law and order when rich and powerful face the same consequences as the common man for their crimes committed and not when they are let off the hook.
I do think Garland made a massive mistake. Nixon resigned; Trump did not. Nixon largely disappeared, as most former Presidents do during their successor's term. Trump was still communicating crimes and clearly intended more.
I'm drawing a kind of fine and possibly meaningless distinction here. I think Ford made the best decision he could at the time. Garland had the benefit of hindsight: he saw the way the corruption had become far deeper than the President himself. Garland should have known better.
Fox News was founded by Roger Ailes with the explicit intent to prevent another Nixon situation. Not the "criminal President" part, mind you; the punished (Republican) President part.
Preemptive meaning they hadn't yet been convicted. Nixon was pardoned by Ford in this manner (for "all offenses against the United States" between Jan. 20, 1969—Aug. 9, 1974). Carter preemptively mass-pardoned draft dodgers, etc.
That's when I learned you can be pardoned for future crime since the expiration was end of day. There's nothing stopping a president from signing blanket future pardons with a 100 year expiry. I'm amazed there wasnt any discussion when it happened.
Look at what the Trump administration has done with the DOJ pursuing unwarranted indictments against anyone Trump doesn't like. All getting thrown out so far. And you lead with questioning why one of his constant targets would pardon his family?
The bigger question is why this isn't more outrage at the GOP attempts to find something on Biden or Clinton. They have been wasting tax dollars while Coomer "investigates" for something that he has never been able to prove.
I'd have pardoned everyone around me given that constant sustained and terrible attack.
All the while the Trump grift machine continues without so much as a blink.
Love this idea - if I were to extend it, I'd add some kind of analysis breaking down the % composition of pardons (fraud vs drug offences vs financial crime) by President to see if there's some common trend. I was a little surprised to see the Obama number quite so high, until it became apparent that the vast majority were drug offenders being pardoned
In 2021, convicted fraudster Adriana Camberos was freed from prison when President Trump commuted her sentence. Rather than taking advantage of that second chance, Ms. Camberos returned to crime. She was convicted again in 2024 in an unrelated fraud. In 2026, Mr. Trump pardoned her again.
Presidents shouldn't have the right to outright pardon people. It should have to go through some sort of body beforehand and be voted on like everything else.
This kind of civic data should have been easily searchable for years. The fact that someone had to build it says a lot about how accessible government records actually are.
276 comments
I wanted to do some stuff with this data so need a raw format.
(process was so easy since its included on a single page load, so I assume you don't mind! thanks for making this )
https://pardonned.com/pardonned.db
> For any nonviolent offenses against the United States which they may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1 2014 through the date of this pardon (JAN 19, 2025).
https://pardonned.com/pardon/details/biden-family/
That’s 11+ years with no detail or description.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-4311-...
> Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
Not quite as long, but much more significant. (No violence exception, the criminal was the President, and they were crimes against the entire country, not some random drug/tax charges.)
Pardons have valid uses, but it's wild that a single person can unilaterally pardon donators, family members, former presidents, etc, without needing so much as a simple majority confirmation vote in the House or Senate.
The questionable pardons that we've seen over the last few years (and the Nixon pardon) are just the tip of iceberg in terms of how badly they could be abused.
I'd imagine it won't be long until we see a president issue a preemptive pardon to themself at the end of their term, because there's nothing in the constitution that says they can't.
> Would Kim Jong Un consider giving up his position if he could be pardoned, or at least credibly believe that he could live a life in luxurious exile?
The kind of despot that sends assassins against people in exile is unlikely to choose it themselves.
Avoiding responsibility isn't the goal, and shouldn't be possible.
> without needing so much as a simple majority confirmation vote in the House or Senate
This is intentional. Pardons are part of the checks and balances against the legislative branch.
Not sure if they can void an improper pardon, but it would nice if the threat of impeachment was more meaningful of a deterrent.
It is political suicide- one of the perks of having 20 different parties.
Presidential immunity for, say, selling a pardon is very new.
There is absolutely no point in US history that the US was “ideal”.
My still living parents grew up in the segregated south.
> It’s in the Constitution. There isn’t that much anyone can do.
We have modified the constitution before. It is not easy, sure. But, presidential pardons are being abused so thoroughly that it does warrant people making the effort to change things.
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/22/us/ford-wins-kennedy-awar...
2. They commit an additional concurrent offense of abusing those powers and public trust for crime.
If we put 3x caught pot dealers in for life, a corrupt President can certainly rot alongside them.
The more powerful you are, the more significant the penalties for abuse of that power should be, because the damage you can do is correspondingly large.
The US has many such instances unfortunately.
I'm drawing a kind of fine and possibly meaningless distinction here. I think Ford made the best decision he could at the time. Garland had the benefit of hindsight: he saw the way the corruption had become far deeper than the President himself. Garland should have known better.
> Nixon resigned; Trump did not.
Well, yeah. They learned from Nixon!
Fox News was founded by Roger Ailes with the explicit intent to prevent another Nixon situation. Not the "criminal President" part, mind you; the punished (Republican) President part.
Will have to crunch through the offenses in the db and see if anything else like this shows up.
https://pardonned.com/pardon/details/adriana-isabel-camberos...
Adriana Camberos was in fact pardoned twice.
In 2021, convicted fraudster Adriana Camberos was freed from prison when President Trump commuted her sentence. Rather than taking advantage of that second chance, Ms. Camberos returned to crime. She was convicted again in 2024 in an unrelated fraud. In 2026, Mr. Trump pardoned her again.
Full story here: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/16/us/politics/trump-fraudst...